Bruce Momjian writes:
> Was this dealt with?
Yes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> According to SQL2008 section 7.11 , general rule 5, the
> default definition of window framing in a window that has an ordering
> clause but no framing (RANGE/ROWS) clause is that the window frame for
> a given row R runs from the first row of its partition through the last
> peer
On Saturday 27 December 2008 20:32:10 Ron Mayer wrote:
> ISTM ISO should hire you guys (or the postgres project as a whole)
> to proof-read their specs before they publish them.
The way it really works though, effectively, is that vendors hire ISO to
publish their specs.
Having a few inconsisten
"David Rowley" writes:
> Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> I tested on Oracle 10.2.0, and the results are:
>> ...
>> which means the section 4.15 is true. Could anyone try DB2?
> DB2 9.5 results [ are the same ]
OK, good, that means the reference to the frame in 6.10 rule 1b is just
a copy-and-pasteo. (
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I tested on Oracle 10.2.0, and the results are:
>
> select depname, empno, salary,
> lead(salary, 1) over (order by salary),
> lag(salary, 1) over (order by salary),
> first_value(salary) over (order by salary),
> last_value(salary) over (order by salary)
> from empsalary;
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> I tested on Oracle 10.2.0, and the results are:
>
> select depname, empno, salary,
> lead(salary, 1) over (order by salary),
> lag(salary, 1) over (order by salary),
> first_value(salary) over (order by salary),
> last_value(salary) over (order by salary)
> from empsalary;
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2008/12/28 Tom Lane :
>> "Hitoshi Harada" writes:
>>> 2008/12/27 Tom Lane :
which doesn't conform to spec AFAICS ...
>>> 4.15...says:
>> interesting...6.10 general rule 1b, which very clearly states ...
>> ... 4.15 does seem like evidence that the spec authors may
2008/12/28 Tom Lane :
> "Hitoshi Harada" writes:
>> 2008/12/27 Tom Lane :
>>> I notice that the current patch code seems to implement
>>> first/last/nth_value using the frame, but lead/lag using the partition,
>>> which doesn't conform to spec AFAICS ...
>
>> In 4.15, it says:
>
>> The lead and la
"Hitoshi Harada" writes:
> 2008/12/27 Tom Lane :
>> I notice that the current patch code seems to implement
>> first/last/nth_value using the frame, but lead/lag using the partition,
>> which doesn't conform to spec AFAICS ...
> In 4.15, it says:
> The lead and lag functions each take three argu
2008/12/27 Tom Lane :
> I notice that the current patch code seems to implement
> first/last/nth_value using the frame, but lead/lag using the partition,
> which doesn't conform to spec AFAICS ... but lead/lag on the frame
> doesn't actually appear to be a useful definition so I'd rather go
> with
I wrote:
> Lastly, for a simple aggregate used with an OVER clause, the current
> patch seems to define the aggregate as being taken over the frame
> rather than the partition, but I cannot find anything in SQL2008 that
> lends any support to *either* definition.
Never mind that --- I found it in
According to SQL2008 section 7.11 , general rule 5, the
default definition of window framing in a window that has an ordering
clause but no framing (RANGE/ROWS) clause is that the window frame for
a given row R runs from the first row of its partition through the last
peer of R.
Section 6.10's gen
12 matches
Mail list logo
